March 17, 2017

Multi-tasking Osborne

Business Question

16th March 2017

When can we debate early-day motion 1079, which covers the House’s abject failure to deal with the potentially corrupt revolving door between ministerial office and outside jobs?

[That this House recalls former Prime Minister David Cameron’s condemnation in 2010 of politicians who are out to serve themselves and not the country by lobbying; notes the abject failure of the Government’s watchdog, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, to reduce the abuses of the potentially corrupting revolving door between ministerial office and big business lobbying; and calls on the Government to establish an effective watchdog that would enhance the House’s reputation for probity, removing the opportunities for former Ministers to sell their inside knowledge and contacts for financial advantage by prohibiting their lobbying for companies they influenced or regulated in their Ministerial roles.]

The temptation is there for former Ministers to use their insider knowledge and contacts for their private gain. How is it right that the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which is responsible for approving such appointments, saw fit to give its blessing to a former Minister receiving £13,000 a day in addition to his parliamentary salary? Does that not bring this House into deeper disrepute?

CONDUCT OF THE RT HON. MEMBER FOR TATTONDate tabled: 15.03.2017Primary sponsor: Flynn, PaulSponsors: Stephens, Christopher Hopkins, KelvinThat this House believes that the reputation of the House may be placed in jeopardy by the right hon. Member for Tatton's acceptance of a job with BlackRock, which pays him £13,500 a day in addition to his full-time salary as an hon. Member.

Leader of the House

It is right that we have a committee that is not part of the Government and not a Committee of this House or the other place to make rulings on individual cases. It is important that former Ministers stick to the proper procedures in seeking clearance before taking on any new external appointment.

I am also a member of the Committee, but I do not support this report because I believe it has been interpreted by the press as an act of absolution for the Prime Minister involved and the other culpable people who were led by him, principally the three Select Committees of this House. Going to war was the worst blunder this House committed since sending troops to the Suez war. We should be objective in dealing with our blunders and, although this report has many merits, it does not address the truth that we were led into an avoidable war by a man of vanity who was in a messianic mood—he misled the House in a very serious way.

The hon. Gentleman’s report contains evidence from Dr Rangwala, who rightly says that there are two interpretations of the evidence before Chilcot. One interpretation, which the report suggests should be referred to the Privileges Committee, might lead us to conclude that we went to war in vain. We must remember the principal need to avoid sending soldiers to war in future because of the vanity or inflexibility of this House in making fair judgments. We have that responsibility. If we do not condemn the errors of the past, we are responsible for them.

Chair of Public Administration Committee

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his work on the Committee, and I respect that we differ on the report. I appreciate the emphasis he wants to ​make by declining to support the report, but it is open to the House at any time to refer any matter to the Committee of Privileges. There is a procedure for doing that, and he should try to implement it if he thinks there is a case for doing so.

The difficulty, as the Chilcot inquiry said, is that there are two interpretations of all this and that there is no definitive evidence to suggest culpability or that the former Prime Minister deliberately sought to mislead the House. There are lots of lessons to be learned. As an aside, for the House to be able to make an informed decision, it relies entirely on what the Government tell it. We are in a new era in which the House is consulted about such things, which never used to be the case. We used to have rather more retrospective accountability on such matters, rather than forward accountability, and I question whether such forward accountability works. I do not think the House of Commons is competent to make strategic judgments on the spur of the moment and in the heat of a crisis in the way that a Government should be.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

They are supposed to lead the way, Their conduct should be exemplary. It is not too much to ask. If you don't want it don't go for it. They should set an example of honesty and good nature. When they are narrow minded, slow, self serving we should not look to those we are conditioned to.

The best we can be is human. We should articulate that which is militant, instructive, contentious.

You have to look at it from the perspective of, 'I don't want to acknowledge your authority or walk down your path'. To count on enough people not to join the chorus. We may get things wrong but what you are disposed to do depends upon your principles, on the ideas you hold onto through it all. Most of your colleagues are governed by what is advantageous to themselves.

A nation has been divided. Governments have done evil things, but are given legitimacy and can gloss over it through their media apparatus. It goes back decades until the present. The examples THEY follow are of the wrong kind. If anyone wants to expand on that then please do, I'm unable to.

A lot of it is front, which various headcases, charlatans and greedy careerists excel in. I'd say that was both true and also an understatement. Parasitical? To be sure. Powerful and skillful? Perhaps, but ultimately specious. Its a sad state of affairs that in our society these types of people have long held sway.

I think that we have to take them on. I don't know how that will work out. Its highly likely they will attempt to ignore you. They are mischievous, subtle, serpents. But if you have right on your side along with numbers you've nothing to fear. They may even get angry. And then revert back to their hard faced front. Don't let them carry the day on that specious basis.